Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:27, 14 October 2013

If I leave a message for you: Please respond on your talk page. I'll probably add it to my watchlist, but if I miss something, feel free to leave a talkback. If you leave a message for me: I will most likely respond here. Either add this page to your watchlist or ask me to notify you of a response on your talk page. Note: I reserve the right to decline or withdraw from a situation that is escalating or uncomfortable, without giving a reason, or to take further action through permissable means. (See this policy.) If I mistakenly called your edits as vandalism when I reverted them, it was probably because you did not leave an edit summary. Please realize that, in many cases, unexplained edits are indistinguishable from vandalism! This also applies to Rollbacks. If you're here to troll, harass, or vandalise, I might not be able to stop you, but you will be reverted...and beware the giant dice.

This editor is an Auspicious Looshpah and is entitled to display this Book of All Knowledge with Secret Appendix.

Archives

as Aerobird - Jul 2008-Apr 2010 - May 2010 - Jun 2010-Oct 2010 - Nov 2010-Dec 2010 - Jan 2011-Mar 2011 - Apr 2011-Sep 2011 - Oct 2011 - Nov 2011-Dec 2011 - Jan 2012-Feb 2012 - Mar 2012-Apr 2012 - Apr 2012-May 2012 - Jun 2012 - Jul 2012 - Aug 2012 - Sep 2012 - Oct 2012-Jan 2013 - Feb 2013-Mar 2013 - Mar 2013-May 2013 - May 2013-Jun 2013 - Jun 2013-Jul 2013 - Aug 2013 - Sep 2013

This page has archives. Sections older than 24 hours may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 2 sections are present.

DYK for 2013 Mudsummer Classic

On 10 October 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 2013 Mudsummer Classic, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Norm Benning singlehandedly made the 2013 Mudsummer Classic a success by nearly getting wrecked three times? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2013 Mudsummer Classic. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Unblock request of TJ Spyke

Hi Bushranger, could you check if you agree with the provisional unblock conditions I porposed on User_talk:TJ_Spyke#May_2013? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 07:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

They look alright to me, although I would make two modifications: one, adding a specific and explicit prohibition from making any alterations to redirects, not even piping; and two, making it explicitly clear that this is a last and final chance and the next block, if one occurs, will be subject to the Standard Offer and will result in a community ban discussion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The thing I'm worrying about most with this editor is that they seem to be looking wikilaywer ways around the rules, rather than abiding by the spirit. If there is a misspelling in a link, it's obviously counter productive to leave it there (i.e., if there is dislexia somewhere, the appearance needs to be fixed). To be ironclad, I decided for the instruction to fix it to ] rather than ] to prevent interpetational fixes for redirects, the instruction is simply to never change the target of a link if that link is a redirect. I'll take both suggestions along if they agree and I bring this to AN for discussion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Lucia Black

I saw your block here and Lucia Black talk page post related to the block. Please consider replying at Lucia Black's AN request. Take care. -- Jreferee (talk) 11:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I saw that, but I'm honestly, given the continued brouhaha around all that, not sure there is a solution bar a draconian one which wouldn't help anybody in the end; I'd prefer to keep out as much as possible. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Clarify

Just to clarify I am not the Editor Copperchloride.I am from Bangalore .I used edit only in Tamil Misplaced Pages and only read English Misplaced Pages. பெங்களூர் நாகேஷ். — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.166.246.46 (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

It's overlink

or WP:See Also. All of those articles are linked via the navbox and in many cases, the articles. As a general rule, the 'See also' section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes. Thus, many high-quality and comprehensive articles do not have a 'See also' section, although some featured articles like 1740 Batavia massacre and Mary, Queen of Scots include this section." Is quite clear on the subject....William 23:21, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's quite clear that it's "as a general rule". It is not, however, required, and WP:CONSENSUS through general editing is that this is included in aircraft articles. If you believe it shouldn't be you need to get a new WP:CONSENSUS through discussion at WT:AIR... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The consensus is at the WP:See Also section. Point to me where it is otherwise....William 23:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll point to all the aircraft articles per WP:EDITCONSENSUS, and to the part of WP:SEEALSO that says "as a general rule" - "general rules", by nature, are general, not strict. If you believe these should be removed they need to be removed from all aircraft articles, not cherry-picked by manufacturer, and that requires a full discussion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

You're the one who should be putting up not reverting GF edits. Manual of Style is very clear. You want that changed, then you try to form the new consensus. Administrators ignoring consensus, just more of the typical bs around here....William 23:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and refrain from personal attacks. I am following the clear WP:EDITCONSENSUS per WP:BRD. The WP:MOS is very clear that this is a general rule, not a Thou Shalt. Consensus through editing is that these are included, the change would be from that and, therefore, requires discussion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Still can't come up with anything. Edit consensus doesn't say anything about why something can't be fixed even if its been wrong for years. See Also is quite clear and you can't come up with anything better than Editconsensus because you know what you're doing is total bs. Wrong formatting can be fixed anytime. It don't matter if its been there for 5 months or 5 years. You get the new consensus. I'm reverting tomorrow. Now I'm going to watch a hockey game....William 23:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

This is not wrong formatting: this is the standard format used by all aircraft articles that has gone unchallenged - thus being accepted by consensus. Your lack of good faith and refusal to listen are dissapointing; I hope that you will reconsider your declared intention to disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a point and instead follow WP:BRD by discussing your desired new consensus at WT:AIR. WP:EDITCONSENSUS is Misplaced Pages policy. WP:SEEALSO is not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

María de Villota, thank you for locking the article down

One of my edits trying to curb the vandalism looks like vandalism itself, wasn't able to catch one in time, oops. :)--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

That happens sometimes when they sneak in two bits of vandalism! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Time Queen

I didn't check the master, I just assumed based on duckish behavior they were related. As it turns out all of those socks are a big paid editing firm, discrete from Aviation geek. I'm not sure how best to proceed, as we enter COI land. Any inclinations on how best to do so? NativeForeigner 19:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like meatpuppetry, which is treated the same as sockpuppetry. What I'd suggest is finding out what the first account created was from the logs, then tag them all as socks of that account with the SPI moved to that master's title? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm aware of that portion. I'm not sure how to treat the connection between Aviation geek and this pseudo related group. NativeForeigner 21:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

More WP:MEAT? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe. He seems to have been internal to a company. The relation between him and the other socks is odd. Not all the socks are his. Most of them are socks of this PR firm. Which he used, and also madethe article on his personal account. That's the easy way to deal with it in any case. NativeForeigner 23:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Not to interrupt here, but I assume you both saw: Extensive network of clandestine paid advocacy exposed - The Signpost, 9 October 2013. I thought it might be relevant to this discussion. - Ahunt (talk) 00:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear lord... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Facepalm Wow! Makes one wonder how many such paid editors are out there, and how often we've run into them. I do try to assume good faith, but this severely undermines that. And having been accused of paid advocacy on several occasions for simply attempting to keep a corporate article neutral, this won't help that either. - BilCat (talk) 04:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I'm involved with that. It's quite disconcerting. NativeForeigner 06:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps there needs to be a corrolary to WP:BOOMERANG: 'if you're accused of paid advocacy on a corporate article, the accuser is likely an advovate'?! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

In most if not all of such incidents that I've experienced, the accusers were quite obviously POV pushers, which is a type of advocacy, albeit unpaid. Perhaps some of them are being paid now though. I can imagine groups like POGO, PETA or other type of extreme organizations doing that. - BilCat (talk) 08:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to disturb the conversation with my link to the SignPost above, but I was concerned that you were thinking "too small" about the scope of the issue and thus might under-react! Nobody expects... - Ahunt (talk) 10:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Unsecure account block

Given this and this, should Nasnema be blocked until it can be determined that his account is secure? If his account wasn't hacked, and I presume that it wasn't, the ploy is probably worth a disruption block anyways. Ryan Vesey 20:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

If it looks like they're playing the It Wasn't Me card, then it's likely disruption to the level of needing blocking. If not though and they have changed their password, it's just something to keep an eye on. Not sure which though... - The Bushranger posting as Aerobird from a public computer 21:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

User talk:TJ Spyke

Just FYI in case you aren't watching, this user has appealed their block. I have declined the current appeal. However, there is a proposed set of unblock conditions on the page. If they indicate they would be willing to abide by those conditions it might be helpful if you commented as to whether you feel that is sufficient cause to consider an unblock. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

This was discussed above actually - I proposed some additions that I believe the chap currently discussing with him accepted. - The Bushranger posting as Aerobird from a public computer 21:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The Incredible Hulk (TV series)

Would you mind explaining why you changed the category from "The Incredible Hulk (1978 TV series)" (correct) to "The Incredible Hulk (1977 TV series)" (incorrect)? --Musdan77 (talk) 19:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Because the CfD for the rename needs to process so that the bot can move the latter category to the former, so that the contribution history of the category can be preserved. Manually creating the new category and moving to it is an out-of-process move that breaks the attribution chain. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I don't quite understand the whole procedure. Maybe I will someday. Thanks for the reply. --Musdan77 (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

It's a little complicated at times, but well worth learning. Keep up the good work! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

usually one sneeze like word

No, no - according to a cop I briefly knew the expression is "commiefaggotfascistnazipinkoBASTARD"...... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Gesundheit! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For the deletion closing at Learning entropy. Bearian (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)